Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Good morning. First off, Judge Zonme, thank you for your patience in the time issues. We were delayed on the floor longer than we anticipated, for sure. But thank you so much for being here this morning. So welcome to House Human Services. We are taking up our omnibus DCF bill and have asked Judge Zonet for his thoughts and any feedback that he might have on this bill. And as you can see, covers a lot of different things. And you may have feedback about some particular areas and not on other areas. So we just we welcome, any feedback that you have. So thank you for being here, judge.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: It's my pleasure. Tom Zonay, chief superior judge. And as the chair has indicated, there's a lot of different sections here, and many of them are obviously policy sections that the court does not weigh in on. I thought I would just touch base on a few areas that I noted that may be of interest to the committee moving forward. In section four, the section that deals with the unaccompanied homeless youth, on page eight of the bill, it talks about a consent on line seven, subsection e, and it talks about consent. Even though this isn't tie into the judiciary per se, I did want to note that when I read this statute, the question I had was, well, says the parents shall consent. What if they don't? Well, then it says, well, it can be implied by certain acts. Well, it really an implied consent? Or is it saying that if you do X, we deem it consent? And it might be a nuance or a distinction without a difference to some, but I just think that the language is important when you're looking at parental rights, and in the courts, in the criminal docket, for instance, if there's going to be a consent, it has to be a knowing and voluntary consent. And so the question I had was when it says they shall consent, what does that really mean? Again, what if they don't? And what if a parent is deemed to have given implied consent, but they want to contest it. They say, I don't agree with this. There's no mechanism for that here, for the parent to move forward to say that he or she disagrees with this process going on for their child or having DCF stand in loco parentis essentially taking their parental rights and making those decisions for them. So I just point that out as something, certainly I have not watched all the testimony. Maybe the committee has discussed that, but that was something that struck me. On, line 12, it says consent can be demonstrated by a letter from a homeless service provider or school district homeless liaison or other appropriate staff member. But it doesn't say what the substance of the letter is. And does the letter say the parent gives consent, or is the letter intended to say that the homeless service provider or school district homeless liaison gives consent? And if that's the case, involving them, if I'm not mistaken earlier, I think it's on page five, providers and liaison were actually part of the process for certification, and so it seems that and maybe it's intentional, but you have a process where providers are going to be certifying someone for something, and then you're then jumping them down, it looks like being able to actually give the very consent that they're certifying them to go and get.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: You this, again, but this bill does not have in it, section four, not have any court action. And so it's not something that the courts would necessarily see unless parents are challenging it, it appears, or have concerns about, or anyone's challenging it or have concerns about the way it's implemented. So the next section I would hit on is on page 24, it's section 13.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Judge, can I just ask you, we've actually touched on that point that you were just making about it just says section four does not require any court action? That was something that came up in testimony. And I I I'm unclear about whether you're recommending that there is something that the court should do or not.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: I would not weigh in on whether or not as a policy that there should be a court action. I simply wanna I would like, however, think it's fair to identify that it's not there. So the question for the committee on a policy is, do you want to provide an identified mechanism for a parent, for instance, whose child is subject to who's going through this process to be able to challenge it. And if you do, I would suggest at that point, you would want to spell out what is the due process that you want to afford, because there are constitutional rights for parents. And so due process for a parent to exercise their parental rights is something that has been recognized as their right as parents. So if you want to provide a clear and identified mechanism that a parent seeking to challenge a finding or whatever it is, I would suggest that at that point you would want to identify what the process is because it's not clear whether, for instance, it's a writ of mandamus that someone would have to file an action to say we want the court to mandate something, and that's an extraordinary writ. That's the phrase that's used in the law. Or whether it's a rule 75, appeal from governmental action. So the mechanism for what you do for the next step is not clear.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, thank you. And as you said, it's a policy decision about whether we At this point in time, we haven't done any markup on the bill yet. But you know, I I think that's a as you pointed out, a policy decision about whether or not that we are looking to have a venue or opportunity for a parent to challenge that. So thank you for your thoughts on that.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Any other questions on that section?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Doesn't look like it, thank you.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: On section 13, which is on page 24, it starts, I guess, on page 23. Section 13, judicial review of aftercare placements. It's unclear whether this is supposed if this is intended to apply only to minors, not to minors? What if a minor generally, a minor if the court is going to vacate an order for a minor, we have provisions for that on how we're looking at things. And so it's unclear what category of use this is intended to apply to. Is this intended to be more of a voluntary agreement under 33 VSA 4,904 and aftercare and address that. I've tried to get additional information and I understand that there may be some thoughts from DCF or others as to where it goes, but irrespective of what we might think it's intended to apply to, clarity would be helpful to make sure everyone's on the same page. This is what it applies to. This is the group of individuals it applies to. And the last line talks about the court approving an aftercare placement or program if it determines that the placement or program is in the best interest of the child. Again, we have best interest standards for approval. We use them for termination of parental rights, permanency plans. The question is here: what if the court says it doesn't approve it?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Yeah. No, I understand what you're saying. Representative Donahue, I think has a couple of commentsquestions.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue, Ranking Member]: Yeah, thank you. Think that you're Well, first of all, I agree you're right. It needs clarity. I think that the deputy commissioner of DCF is the person who will be able to help us clarify it because it has a very narrow specific purpose. I think I've been in contact with you a little bit earlier, of meeting federal criteria that allows us to draw down federal funds for these services. And so I can't even off the top of my head tell you what age, what we know what it is by looking at the federal statute that says, for these services, we will pay if and so we can draw it from that. And as I said, deputy commissioner Radke will be able to help point it to you. And it does need to say that explicitly here.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Yeah. I suspect that deputy commissioner Radke has a masterful command of all of the acronyms, the Fs and the Qs and all, and that, and yes, so what my recommendation would be is that what you come out with after visiting with Deputy Commissioner and deciding on is make sure it's very clear who this applies to, and again, the court gets to a conclusion and says we don't approve this, because right now we don't approve Section 4,904 aftercare. So what's the intent here? And that should be clear. And we understand best interest standards. It's broad concept, so by not if you look at, for instance, child parental rights and responsibilities under Title 15, it says in considering and determining the best interest of the child, section six fifty one, it will tell you, you look at the following factors. Here, there's no factors identified, so if you really wanted to identify what, when you talk about best interest for this analysis, what specifically are the factors that you'd like the court to look at? When we look at Title 33, section, let me grab it here, 5,114. It talks about best interest of the child, and in that circumstance, it's as part of a termination of parental rights, and we look at the inter it has specific factors there. And so while the term best interest gives some level of guidance, it's very broad, and if there is a more focused best interest standard and factors that the committee and the legislature thinks should be reviewed, they should be set out in the statute.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Go ahead, representative.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue, Ranking Member]: So just to follow-up, I can't speak for where the committee's policy sense will be, but if we were to say, know, section 13 is premature without fine tuning, do you have any thoughts about section 14, which would say DCF in consultation with the judiciary, come back to us and tell us how to do this so that we meet the federal requirements?

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Yes, comment on that. The short answer is the committee may be aware that we actually have a CHINS judge that is specially assigned statewide. That's Judge Howard Kalpis. When I saw section 14, the email went out to Judge Kalpis and said, are you willing to work with me and consult with DCF and other stakeholders if the legislature would find it helpful to try to address this, and the short answer is yes. And so would certainly, as I understand that section, that section has DCF putting together a report, consulting with the judiciary, and I can tell you that myself, Judge Kalpis, and any other judges or those who may be of assistance would be standing by to work with DCF to try to structure the policy that you're putting forth or would work to effectuate that policy in statute.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue, Ranking Member]: Thank you, judge.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Another question, judge. Representative Maguire.

[Representative Eric Maguire, Member]: Good to see you, judge Zon East. Just quickly, and I did speak to representative Donahue on this, and I think we will get it clarified. But one of the concerns I was having, and I'm all for this, but you actually kind of touched on it, they're they're the youthful offender status. My concern is that those are supervised in different capacities and so forth. And my concern is that this bill could unilaterally go across the board for those that have enforced offender status and to get some type of interpretation into this bill that allows clarity for that because judicial review on a applicator is much different for a youthful offender than somebody that's under the child welfare system of DCF. So I guess what I'm getting to is does the family division obviously considers youthful offenders legally distinct from other DCF custody youth. Is that correct?

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: It's category. A And if your intention is to say that we do not want this bill, in other words, homeless youth bill, if we don't want this section to apply, you could put language in that says these statutes do not apply to any individual under

[Representative Eric Maguire, Member]: You're full offender status.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: You should make it very clear to exclude that group if that's something that works. Now DCF, I'm sure, should have a much better knowledge as to funding streams, can you exclude a group, things like that. I don't have any knowledge about that. But to the extent that there's a category that you would not want to see captured within this bill, you can exclude it. And again, subject to whether that works for all the other provisions of the bill and funding that you might be trying to obtain.

[Representative Eric Maguire, Member]: Yeah. And the reason I I I bring that on up too is because the bill at this time clearly states children in the department for child and family custody, which would pertain to all of those categories, whether you were a full offender and my feeling is we just need to get that clarified in regards to the recognition of usual offender status is much different than what's being applied here.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: I'm sure DCF has some positions they can advise on that.

[Representative Eric Maguire, Member]: Thank you.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I think we're back to you, judge Zonay, if you have any additional comments.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: I do not. Thank you very much.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Are there any further questions or comments from committee members? Thank you so much for your patience with our scheduling issues today, judge.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: I had the screen up. I saw you on the floor. You were busy.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Have a great weekend.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: And have a

[Unidentified committee member]: great weekend.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: We were doing a lot of listening today. That was good.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: Have a

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: great town meeting. Enjoy town meeting week. Take care.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you. It looks like we have a crew here from the Department for Children and Families. And thank you so much for everybody being here today and for adjusting the schedule. So deputy commissioner, are you going to start us off? It looks like people are just sort of getting into the chat room here, maybe into the Zoom room.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Yes, I am. We do have a large crowd today. Thank you so much for inviting us to talk on this proposed bill. I want to start off, well, one for the record. My name is Erica Ratke and I'm deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division. I Deputy want to

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: commissioner, are we able to see your face by any chance or are you having?

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: There we go. Thank you.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: There I am. I thought I'd press that button.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Well, sometimes people sometimes people have, you know, Wi Fi issues and not always able to see their face, but I thought I would check before assuming that.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Thank you. I appreciate that. With me today is, got a lot of folks. We have Amanda Churchill Kipp, Lindy Boudreaux, Tyler Allen, Brenda Gooley, also Lindsay Baron. And I believe in the room we also have Hannah Markle. I don't believe I'm missing anybody. Oh, yes. And also we do have, from the business office, Megan. Megan has agreed to attend as well. So with that, I do want to go ahead and just get started with our PowerPoint because I know that time is short. So let's see if I can do this here.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Well, we we are giving you the time that you need this morning. We're gonna work through our lunch hour so that Oh, wow. And, so just just wanted you to know that in advance. Yeah. Who is running the slideshow so that Lori can give them access? Oh, that'll be me. I'll be running it.

[Unidentified committee member]: So do I just

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I was gonna say, do we have that on there? Yes. Yes. We do.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: I think it's a section that I have.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Alright. Hold on. Hold on just a second.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: Leave your mind. Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's not a slideshow. So

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Except that, yes, we might vote in Sierra, well, Deputy Commissioner will just present the slideshow.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Can absolutely. We would like to see the slide. Some people can't see the screen well. Can you forward that to us right now? Somebody? Okay. Thank you. Sometimes there's issues with glare and people's ability to easily see the screen. Thank you. It's it's so members, it will be loaded up on your iPads shortly. So you can go ahead, though, deputy commissioner.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Okay. Great. I'll make sure. Now if I just share this, is that all I needed to do?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: You're asking the wrong person, but I think so. Share screen and then choose the Yeah. Share the screen. Yep.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Looks like it's, oh, no. That's not that's not it.

[Unidentified committee member]: It looks like it too, buddy.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Do you guys have it up on your individual screens? It looks like I'm able to share in Teams, but I'm not quite sure how to share it on Zoom.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Hannah, if you want

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: to join the meeting. Yeah, was

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: just happy to. You want to do that, just want join.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So, Erica, Hannah's gonna join the meeting and she can run the slideshow for you from this Thank

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: you, Hannah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. So let's just wait a couple of seconds while the technology is catching up with the people. Okay. It is on the screen now, deputy commissioner.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Okay. Let's get going then. Great. So again, thank you so much for having us here to talk about H six fifty seven. This is really an important opportunity to us because we really want the opportunity to share with you all our insights as a division regarding the proposed bill. And what plan to do is just to first talk a little bit about our mission statement, because I think that'll ground everyone in our shared values, before we move directly into talking about age six fifty seven. And the mission of the Family Services Division is to really, we engage deeply with foster and kin caregivers and partner agencies, as well as the community to really increase the safety and law abidance of Vermont's children and youth, particularly those that we know are the most vulnerable, that are in DCF care and custody. And when we're looking at, H-six 57, we know that it's an omnibus bill and it touches on just so many aspects of, the work we do in DCF. And we know that that's because we all have a shared responsibility in the youth and children and families that we serve. So what our plan is to walk through each section of the bill carefully and deliberately, and to give you an idea of where we are aligned, where we do need clarification, and where there may be additional discussions that can be had so that we can have more collaboration. And we really do appreciate the the committee's work on this because we know that this was really a heavy lift to pull together this omnibus bill. I

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: just want to, say, thank you to you and your staff as well, deputy commissioner for, you know, the discussions that we had prior to the session and, you know, some of these things are things that we know that we both are wanting to work on. And so, appreciate that collaboration as well.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Thank you very much. So I know I wanna go ahead and get right into, the section I was I'm going to be talking about, which is Social Security benefits for youth and foster care. And I've talked to, representative Noyes and a lot of other community partners about this because this is an issue we've been thinking about. Philosophically, we really are aligned in that we believe these benefits are intended to support individual youth and we do share the goal of ensuring that they have these benefits meaningfully and to help them in the most meaningful, helpful ways that they can and for the youth that these benefits are designated for. Currently, there are two types of Social Security benefits that FSD handles on behalf of a child or youth in custody. And that's survivor benefits or sometimes called residual benefits. And those are tied to a parent's work history. And then there's also disability benefits. That's child It's really tied to a child's disability or qualifying condition. And in the department, we track these funds very carefully month by month, child by child to ensure that these benefits are associated with the one youth that they are supposed to be used for. So when a youth exits custody, if the cost of care was less than the benefits received, then any remaining benefits are returned to the caregiver or directly to the child depending upon their age. And that's not a typical circumstance. Generally, the care of a child in custody exceeds the amount of benefits that they receive. So, and when that's the case, then the state does cover that difference. And at this juncture, we do believe, looking at the proposed bill, we need some additional time to fully assess how the proposal could be implemented in a way that avoids disruption to youth and maintains system stability. Recent discussions with federal partners suggest that there may actually be an iterative approach that are planning to explore with them to see how that would look in practice because we have we understand the feds are also supportive of having these benefits used specifically for the youth in custody given to the youth for their use. In thinking about how that could work, we've been thinking that there's a potential step in that direction that could be considered as sort of a phased in or partial distribution of benefits. For example, allocating a percentage of monthly benefits directly to a youth. And this is something that we could do while implementing pathways or administrative requirements considerations that need to be further clarified in order to make sure that this is all done in a way that maintains the system for all of the youth in custody and the children that are receiving these benefits. It's it's really, for us, an incremental approach really will allow us to move forward with this bill's intent while ensuring that any changes are done, are implemented in a thoughtful and responsible way. And this is something we really are committed to continuing to collaborate with you as the committee as well as the federal partners that we've been speaking with.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you, deputy commissioner. We we have a a question here from representative Noyes. Yeah. Thank you so much.

[Representative Daniel Noyes, Clerk]: Appreciate our conversations and working with the the department on this. So you said you needed kind of a a a period of time, and I was just wondering if you know how long that is.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: I don't have a specific timeline. That's absolutely a reasonable question. This whole thing of an iterative approach with the feds just I was just made aware of it a couple of weeks ago, and you know it's hard to get ahold of them to even have a discussion. But the commitment is to discuss with them what their recommendations are because the way it was framed was that they are speaking with other states on how to do this. So it's something we're committed to doing. I can't tell you exactly when and how long it's going to take.

[Representative Daniel Noyes, Clerk]: And just a follow-up question, you said that currently you're using these benefits to pay for the individual's care.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Is that correct? That's absolutely correct.

[Representative Daniel Noyes, Clerk]: So who pays for their care if they don't have survivor disability benefits?

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: The state does.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Deputy commissioner, I think that this probably, I just wanna, I guess, make sure that I'm understanding correctly. When you say FSD tracks the funds on a month by month and child by child basis. So, I am making an assumption then that DCF or FSD is the representative payee for those children if you're receiving those benefits directly? Yes. Okay. And so, I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Oh, I'm sorry, just briefly. And that is one of the things that, I remember when we were speaking with a representative noise is something that we would have to work out if we're no longer the rep payee to ensure who will be that person. And we want to make sure would there be any liability on our part if the wrong person is selected? A lot of things that need to be considered, when we're making that transfer over, because we do want to make sure if we aren't the payee that we have the right payee so that the child actually does get those benefits.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Sure. And, you know, I'm not sure that the bill intends that there'd be a different representative payee, to be honest. You have systems that are set up for that already. And so, I mean, we haven't had that full discussion in committee yet, but just from my perspective, I'm not sure that we would be expecting DCF to relinquish being represent payee for those children with benefits. So I don't know if that helps to clarify that for you or not.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: I mean, that is helpful. And I know that I guess there's a lot of different ways we can look to do it because I do believe New Mexico, I'm not sure if it's New Mexico. I know some of the states do decide that they're not going to be the payee to really sort of step out of the business, particularly when it's a child aging out for that freedom for them to administer those funds. But it's all up for like we were saying, need more time to work out what we feel will be best for the

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: kids. Yeah.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: The important thing I think is that we are at least all aligned that in some shape, form or fashion that we do want the youth to have these benefits.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that the devil's always in the details on something like this for sure. And we recognize that there are details to work out issues to resolve. And I think that the, you know, what we have is a shared commitment to have the youth be able to have access to these funds as they age out. And I think a transition process is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect to see in a bill like this. And I guess I'm asking also if you have any specific language that you would like to see that reflects that, because it does make it, I guess, an easier process. If your legislative council can be in contact with our legislative counsel. And if you have if you have any proposed language because, it just makes it easier than us trying to guess what it is that you're looking for. I'm just trying to be honest about that.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: No, I appreciate that. We don't have proposed language at this point because we really do want to get with the feds to figure out what they are envisioning for us. But I know at least in looking at the proposed legislation, some things that stuck out to me was that there was a fair amount of, you know, we've been doing some accounting, but there'll be additional reporting. There'll be some setting up of able accounts or other accounts. There's a fair amount of additional administrative work that I don't believe we have FTE capacity for. So that would be something we would be looking for, definitely.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And I I think that those are also things to for, to get worked out between the, treasurer's office And, you know, they they have a contractor for able accounts already. And, you know, so trying to work out also, you know, like, who would be doing what, you know, and which I think is a it's a fair question.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Yes. No. And I was listening to his testimony yesterday and I did hear they had contractors and I know that he also felt that there were a few areas where he would be looking to DCF to So that's just one thing I know stuck out in my mind. Other than that, I would have to wait for our counsel to really get with the feds and of course with our leadership to talk about other things that we feel would be needed in the bill.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So, you know, I think that, this sort of applies to anybody else who is going to testify on this, that we are looking to meet our deadline of crossover, which is two weeks from today. And it would be, and I know you can't govern when you're gonna be able to get the feds to give you a callback or be able to be in communication with them. But I think that we can still craft language that would meet your needs and meet our needs and meet the needs of the youth and the treasurer's office, I won't forget them, in a way that, I guess, formalizes what the intent of our process is moving forward and maybe can develop a timeline to get these various kinds of questions and issues resolved. So I'm hopeful that we can get to that point. And like I said, it would be helpful if we can engage your legal counsel with Katie's on vacation this week, or this coming week, but she certainly would be available the following week to have any conversations that would be helpful to ensuring that we are having similar goals here.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Sure, I can absolutely reach out to our counsel. And I love that you worded it in terms of an understanding moving forward, because I don't know at this point whether we can do more than sort of outline what our goals are. We are really still at the initial stages.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. I I think that the the purpose of of having this section in the bill is to lay out that our our expectation is to move in this direction and that we know it will take a process to make that happen and probably some additional legislation at a future point. But just to be clear that we just the inclusion in the bill is so that we can, I think be clear about the message that we're sending on this policy, on what the future policy direction will be?

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: That makes a lot of sense. And again, it was our revenue enhancement director, Heather McLean and I have been talking with rep Noyes and we've found it to be really helpful to do that work upfront to sort of, so we could all understand what our positions were and to share information.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. And we will continue to do that over the next couple of weeks.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: And I

[Representative Daniel Noyes, Clerk]: have some language from Arizona that I'll send

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: over on that.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, great. Okay. Okay, I think we got a lot of topics to cover, so we should probably move to the next topic.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Let's go on to the next slide then, and I believe, Lindy Boudreaux is ready to introduce herself and get started.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And members, we do have this on our website now if you want to see it up close. Thank

[Lindy Boudreaux, Analyst and Services Director, DCF Family Services]: you, Erica. For the record, I'm Lindy Boudreaux. I'm the analyst and services director at Family Services. So we are in support of providing meaningful support and resources to unaccompanied homeless youth. And we believe that that support should align with our current statutory authority. We also agree with testimony that was provided earlier this week by the OC YFA and Marshall Paul, that having DCF Family Services specifically hold the certification and support might not be best suited and should be reconsidered. We feel that having an agency that holds responsibility and resources for housing might be better suited to be able to provide the support to these youth. That will eliminate confusion about our role, given we would not be providing any supervision or support around concerns of child abuse or neglect or justice involvement. And it will also avoid any unintentional supervision by the department. Hannah is gonna speak about concerns about human trafficking.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Lindy, before we move off off from So I I understand what you're saying. It it you know, I think it makes some sense there. And wondering I'll wait. I the the question is not really, like, formulating. I I have the concept in my brain, but it's not really formulating it as a question yet. So, let me just check-in with my other members here if you have a question on what Lindy was just referring to. We did that yesterday. So appreciate that people seem to be on the same page about that. Okay, let's move to the human trafficking. Thank you.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Thanks, I'm Sharon. I'm the Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs for DCF Family Services. Happy to sit in the chair if that's helpful for folks.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: Didn't want

[Unidentified committee member]: you all

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: to bring your nets. And we have submitted two memos within the last couple of days with a bit more detail surrounding the points that Wendy just made on unaccompanied homeless youth. That So could be helpful for the committee to consider as well. Briefly on human trafficking, these cases in this population experiencing homelessness and transitioning into their adulthood are at statistically an increased risk of both labor and human trafficking. I did cite a study in that memo. It is about ten years old, but it did come from our trafficking expert at DCF and is relied upon by experts in the judicial system at times. We would have been remiss if we didn't just mention this to the committee as something to consider. The increased vulnerability is something that, as Vermont's Child Protection Agency, we do worry about for young people. And we are proposing that something be added in the language specifically around some safeguards, whether that be a screening tool that's populated and sent to the agencies that can be certifying youth in this capacity or in some other manner. But we would have been remiss if we didn't touch on that topic as well. And I am not the expert in the interstate compacts on juveniles. That would be Tracy Pasanova, whose scheduling wasn't quite matching up today. But we did also just want to mention that we wouldn't want this to be any sort of method to circumvent that legal process. And we do have some more concrete explanations surrounding some things that could be put in place for human trafficking supports and would really want to be leaning on experts and not pushing that onto the people that are potentially certifying these youths, as human trafficking is quite nuanced, as I know you all know. And we would just want to be making sure that that is an expert opinion supporting that aid to ensure that they are not being victimized. I think representative McGill has a question.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Trissy is able to address the you know, if if she has particular things that she because I I know there's a balance between we don't we don't want to have conflict we don't wanna have anything conflicting in this bill with other statutory language or federal stuff around human trafficking. So we certainly can have her in when we get back if she's available. Go ahead, Richardson.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: I was just going to say, I was really glad you all raised this point. Was exactly why I brought this bill. As we know, they're a youth, youth, I really like Marshall's term for who are out there and they are being trafficked and not having access to ways to get food, to somewhere safe to sleep makes them even more at risk for trafficking. And I would actually like to connect with you all because all of these organizations doing this work with the youth who can gain consent operate under these. They're required by their federal funding to do trafficking screenings, to follow the compacts and ensure youth are connected back to their state if they've come here from somewhere else. So there is some federal language we operate under. So it might just be something great to connect about. But your testimony made me think, we really don't talk about trafficking a lot in Vermont, but we also know it's increasing. And I'm just wondering if this is an opportunity for us to start really recording that and collecting. It's really hard data to collect, and there's places you can find little bits of data. They're not in one place. And I think really it's our responsibility as a state to be tracking this information and the legislature should be paying attention and making sure we're addressing these increased spreads. So I don't know, something that just kind of sparked me. But I really appreciate you all raising this issue because it is really And it's great to

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: put you in touch with Tracy Casanova as well. She, I do not want to speak as the expert in that subject by any means, but did consult with her on the points that we're making today, as well as the information that's included in the memo. I'm happy to connect you.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: And I think she and I met in the cafeteria last year or So yes, I would appreciate that.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. Thank you. I think we're moving on to restraints in the transportation.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: And I believe, we were going to skip past those slides because when we spoke with Rep Donahue, I know there's going to be some work done.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: So we can move past those even though Tyler Allen is present online. But we can skip those slides and move on to the next area if that helps.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Don't want Tyler to miss an opportunity to say something if he has any particular insights or things that we should be aware of that we might not be.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: Yeah, I'm certainly here and available. For the record, my name is Tyler Allen. I'm the high end system of care director for the Family Services Division. I have comments on each of these slides. My impression was that we wanted to take some of those comments offline and revisit them later, I could generalize for maybe for the purposes of this discussion, you all have the slide deck so you can see what's in there. One thing I wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of is the responsibility of Family Services Division to be not only responsive to the individual needs of the youth in our care, but also to the communities with which they live. So there is that public safety component of what we do. Mechanical restraints and transportation, I think the high level talking point here is we would be happy to provide a regular report, which I think is what is required in this. But the one area of future maybe discussion is that we don't directly oversee law enforcement and that includes sheriffs. So we oversee a contract, but what a sheriff does to make or law enforcement does to make a determination around what is appropriate safety needs is left to the purview of those law enforcement officers is kind of the high level. And I'm sure that generates a lot of thought and questions for folks, but I do think it might be helpful future time or now to describe the process by which we engage those law enforcement when that is needed. I did hear Attorney Paul's testimony yesterday, which I found to be quite compelling and egregious situation. I think that steps outside of how we contract with sheriff's departments. I think perhaps the state police response is different than what we do with sheriff response, but what we do engage with the sheriff to do secure transports, but it is very rare that we actually utilize a mechanical restraint compared to how often that's deemed not necessary. And so we have a form that we fill out. We present the risks to the sheriff at the point of. And, for example, last year we had in 500 plus examples, there were only 23 examples of which it was deemed necessary to use some form of mechanical restraint. So I just wanna make sure that things are in kind of context.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: Yeah. So I think that's the high level point I'd make on mechanical restraints and I can pause with that, then

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank ask you. Thank you. And yes, I'm aware there's further conversations happening with representative Donahue on this. And I I'm I'm thinking also, committee, it might be good to have Tim Lutland in from the sheriff's

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Mhmm.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Department of sheriffs and state's attorneys to review the procedure from their end of things. Okay? Thank you very much, Tyler. Appreciate that.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: And then I had two other slides. I realized I was off slide, but the slide that's on is a solitary confinement slide. My understanding is a lot of that has to do with the Department of Corrections. That's probably a more relevant term to the Department of Corrections. Don't have solitary confinement as a practice in DCF. But I just did wanna take this moment while I have the stage to show appreciation. I think there is the way that this bill looks at solitary confinement is more akin to the practice of seclusion, which is an intervention that is grounded in the immediate safety of a youth and the people surrounding them. And I think that's a really healthy way to be looking at any time we have a young person in an isolated environment, that we are doing so with extra attention and that it is really grounded in the idea that we are providing for the safety of them and other people in that moment, and that we're constantly monitoring and being attentive to that need. And I think this bill does have some of that. And so since I saw those in this section, I think it is relevant to the section on restraint and seclusion, which is another slide, perhaps the next slide, Hannah. And I noticed the bill speaks more restraint specifically than seclusion. Seclusion is, as I said before, a practice that's grounded in safety in the moment. And in my mind, there are different circumstances call for different response. And I think if I could have a seclusion environment, I would always prefer that to some form of restraint. And in some cases I would prefer to see a mechanical restraint employed if the alternative is a physical restraint, because I think all these decisions should be made at minimizing the trauma to those persons receiving that particular intervention at the time. And of course, they're always grounded in safety first. And then I think we should build in a lot of safeguards around these practices. I think there already are safeguards in these practices, and I'm always open ears to more safeguards around the practices. There's, I think, a couple slides on seclusion restraint, and I just want to kinda make clear when our advice is to not have a universal ban on some of the practices. See chemical restraint, prone restraints, for example, I'm trying to remember other strip searching practices. When we're suggesting that there we should not have a universal ban on such practices, it's not about our advising that this is the way we should do business. For example, because the slide is up there, strip searching practices is on there, that this is something that should be minimized in all circumstances as much as possible, and we have come a long way. For example, the Red Clover Treatment Program has been open for a year and a half now. They have never conducted a strip search on any resident in their care because it wasn't deemed necessary at any point. I do think there is the potentiality of a certain situation. If there was, as an example, if a young person had historically had an overdose with a drug, an illicit drug in their past, and that was part of their presentation in the program, and they were to abscond from the program, and this is by way of example, for a period of time and come back, there might be circumstances where such a procedure is warranted. I think there has to be a lot of oversight in terms of how anything like that would be deemed necessary. And as I say, it's not a practice that I've seen in years now, but think a universal ban provides some risk. Chemical restraints, by the same example, we don't authorize chemical restraints. That's not something that DCF can do or does do. Any treatment environment that can use utilize a chemical restraint, the authorization of that is on the license of the medical professional that is determining that is necessary for this moment in time. So to some degree, this bill is saying that we should not be authorizing those things. Where it brings up a question for me is, does the nature of our having a contract with a provider that has the capacity to do so under the direction and licensure of their medical professional, does that constitute some level of authorization? And so that's a question that comes up for me, and I certainly wouldn't want to diminish our capacity to put a young person in a level of care that is needed because it is gonna run us afoul of statute in this regard. Sure. It's just an example I'm bringing up.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. No. I appreciate that. Just just for being absolutely transparent, the the answer is yes. Terms of if the department, any department in state government is under contract or has a grant agreement with an entity that's providing services, yes, you are responsible for what they're doing.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: Agreed that there's some responsibility, and my worry would be that if that were to come into effect, then we would not be able to, for example, have any youth in DCF's custody go to a psychiatric facility like the Brattleboro Retreat or a facility out of state that might meet their need for risk that we would be in violation of the law putting that in an environment, I worry about what that impact could be.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I understand your concern. However, I need to point out that it's not the use of medication for treatment purposes. It's the use of medication for restraint purposes to limit the ability of the individual to interact with their environment and the people around it. And it's specifically for the purposes of that. So I don't want it to be construed that we have any intent of limiting the use of appropriate medication for individuals in their treatment. That is not what this is about at all. And I'm sure that you probably know that, but I just felt I needed to say that because-

[Representative Anne B. Donahue, Ranking Member]: For emergency restraint.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Exactly, yeah.

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: I do know that and I do trust the intention of the committee, Madam Chair, on that. What I'm trying to point out is what could be a potential ramification of that because there are care providers that do provide that as a portion of the services they do, and so this may have that ramification on who can be referred. Gotcha. And then lastly, prone restraints, That's the other form that is kind of universally bound, and think I will, or banned, and I will yield that there is plenty of statistical evidence that shows that prone restraint comes with a heightened risk of asphyxiation, death by asphyxiation specifically, and that is an area of concern. I do think there are two schools of thoughts around restraints, and one of the schools of thoughts is that a supine restraint is one that depending on the individual situation could put a young person at a greater degree of risk. And of course staff as well involved in the incident. And so what we currently do is we work with providers who have form of, who have to have the working with a nationally recognized practice model, and it's a modality that is considerate of safety. And so the advice on some of those modalities is that a prone restraint can be safer, that it requires repositioning upon the restraint going into effect. Essentially, putting somebody down onto their back or lowering somebody to the ground onto their back can be a traumatizing experience for a person and it puts their head at risk of hitting a hard surface on the way down. And it is especially salient when the resident being lowered is of a larger body size and is more difficult to lower to the ground, it could present more risk to them than the alternative. So I'm not saying this is a full throated support of what we should be advocating for prone restraint over supine restraint, and we should always be advocating, and I think as Bill does a great job of really pointing out that we should be always using de escalation as a priority, and all modalities should be grounded in de escalation primarily and secondary, and physical intervention is only a last resort sort of scenario, but in some cases it may actually be safer of the opinion of these modality providers, it might be safer to not put that limit on prone restraints. I'll say this just as a factual, the implementation deadline of July 1 would mean if we did put that ban in place, I think it would be very, very difficult to revise. We have several dozen contracts with providers that would all be needed to be revised. They would all need to find separate and different modalities to train their staff with, and they would need to train their staff up in doing so. And I think there are some logistical there are huge logistical challenges to being able to do that by the deadline. So I just wanted to make sure the committee was aware of that.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. That's very helpful specific feedback on the deadline issue. Thank you very much for your thoughts today, Tyler, and keep them coming. Okay? You

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: got it. You're welcome. Thank you so much. Alrighty.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Looks like our next step is judicial review of aftercare placements. I believe is that Brenda or is that Amanda?

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: I think we can team it and good afternoon everyone. I am Brenda Gooley. I'm the Director of Operations for the Family Services Division. And I'm happy to start out speaking to a point of clarification that I think we need to make, which is the language aftercare could be in reference to two different aspects of our work. So, I believe Amanda Churchill Kipp is going to speak to part of our work that is in reference to our youth development work and transition age youth and those services. And then I'm available to provide clarity and speak to any questions that may be regarding the aspects of aftercare that have to do with the federal Family First Prevention Services Act.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, thank you.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: So I think just building off of the slide that we have up before you right now, with regard to the FFPSA, I think what we wanted to be able to point out is just, so prior to passage of the federal FFPSA, we had, well, if I go back a decade, we had over 200 youth in DCF custody that were placed in residential level care, where we were pulling down federal Title IVA funding for those placements. And then when the FFPSA passed, we were no longer able to draw down 4A funding ongoing. Today, we're able to draw down 4A for the first two weeks of some of those placements. And what the FFPSA did was it put into effect requirement that a series of things needed to be in place in order for states to be able to draw down those federal dollars to support residential treatment program placements. So they coined the phrase qualified residential treatment program. And in order to be qualified, there would need to be a judicial review, there would need to be aftercare, there would need to be accreditation, 20 fourseven nursing, trauma informed care, right? So there's a whole laundry list of very significant services, supports and oversight that would need to be in place in order for states to be able to draw down those funds. And then of course, states need to be able to demonstrate that the youth is FARA eligible, that they are receiving FARA eligible services, and they're in a FARA eligible placement. All of which requires tracking that we are not able to do unless and until we have a comprehensive child welfare information system in place. So Vermont is not ready to move forward on any of that right now. So we just wanted to make sure we were clear that aftercare, if it is in reference to youth stepping down from residential level care, that language that the federal government uses specific to FFPSA for a drawdown is not currently able to be in effect.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I'm not

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: sure if I'm hearing a question.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, I have a question. So, you know, you make a note of, an estimated $1,200,000 unfunded mandate. And and this question, it it might not be connected. And so that's I'm asking a clarifying question. So I'm I'm aware in the department's budget presentation for f y twenty seven that you had a reduction of an amount that's roughly similar to this because you weren't able to weren't able to do the things that you just talked about essentially. The same are you familiar with the budget reduction that I'm talking about? Yes. And are you talking about the same is this the same thing, I guess is my question.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: I'm gonna let Erica speak to that one, but I believe it's in reference to the judicial review aspect of that part of the budget.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: That's my understanding as well.

[Megan Smeady, Financial Director, Department for Children and Families]: Hi, Megan Smeady, financial director of DCF for the record. I'm gonna jump in here. Yes, so we proposed eliminating the budget that we had for aftercare as part of our budget proposal for state fiscal year '27. And it is our understanding that that was accepted by House Human Services and your recommendations to house appropriations. However, this bill sort of does the opposite and and goes back to requiring it without providing the funding.

[Unidentified committee member]: So that would result

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I just wanna make sure we were tied. Thank you for clarifying that, Megan. Yes. You know, I understand what what we did in our memo. I'm just we're also aware that there is federal funding in order to be able to implement this. So I'm just there there's a difference in what we're able to do right now and the policy that we should be striving towards. That's that's that's the only difference I'm trying to the only distinction I'm trying to make. And so, I mean, we understand some of the data limitations, you know, and all of that stuff. I just I wanted to know if I was if if we were talking about the same thing, and it it seems as though we're in the same ballpark, at least.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: Yes, I believe we are. I'll just add a little more information that might be helpful. So within the state of Vermont today, we have eighty nine youth placed in residential level care. So I do wanna be clear that the trend line over the past decade is that the number of youth in residential level treatment has steadily decreased. That is part of the intention behind the FFPSA. And so, that safe reduction of utilization of congregate level care is work that has occurred that I think is beneficial of youth. And there is cost associated with implementing all of these things. And at the same time, we are not able to draw down any federal IV E funds to do that work unless and until we have all of these pieces in place.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you for that clarification. Kind of a chicken and egg thing, isn't it? Yes, indeed.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: So I think from here, it might make sense to turn it over to Amanda Churchill Kipp, who can speak to, particularly with regard to our youth development work and aftercare for youth in DCF custody in general.

[Amanda Churchill Kipp, Policy and Practice Specialist, DCF Family Services]: Great, thanks Brenda. For the record, my name is Amanda Churchill Kipp. I'm a policy and Practice Specialist with Family Services. We weren't clear from the draft whether you may be talking about extended care agreements, so we did prepare to share a little bit with you about that. We have been supporting youth to access extended care for over nineteen years now since HHS championed the Youth in Transition Law in 2007. We've supported hundreds of youth to access supportive housing agreements over the years. And we're currently supporting about 85 youth with extended care agreements through DCF and also through our youth development program, YDP, which is our contracted transition and aftercare program. These services are primarily state funded. We do receive a grant through the federal government, the John H. Chaffee Foster Care Grant. Those funds primarily support the services and then state funds support the actual housing agreements. We do have the opportunity to leverage federal for you for the population of youth who are 18 and opt to remain connected to services. Does come with some added layers of eligibility, administration, and tracking, particularly judicial oversight, which we've not historically had for youth 18. And we have had conversations with the judiciary over time about this, and we are interested in exploring this further. We appreciate the prompt in section 14 to collaborate and plan together around this. It would be really wonderful to grow our resources here and to hopefully serve some additional youth in some greater ways. And I would also just agree with some others around comments to perhaps try to tackle and hone Section 13 after we've accomplished Section 14. Glad to answer any questions about the steps, what's happening now.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. I don't know if you happen to hear Judge Zon East comments just before you folks came on.

[Amanda Churchill Kipp, Policy and Practice Specialist, DCF Family Services]: I did. Yes.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about, know, felt like, again, we should offer some clarity. So if the judiciary doesn't approve a plan, what then kind of thing? And what are the options then at that point in time? So I don't know if you have any thoughts about that.

[Amanda Churchill Kipp, Policy and Practice Specialist, DCF Family Services]: I do. And I think that that would be important work to flesh out together. And Judge Zonet was exactly correct. It is pretty vague the way that the federal language reads around best interest determination and ensuring that the department continues to work with youth toward the development of accomplishment of a permanency plan, which often is independence. That has been like a key question. What is the role of the judiciary here? And what are the options really? So, I think that we would want to address those questions together. Also interesting in terms of like the federal program instructions around extended care, the forum in which these judicial determinations are made is not prescribed. So it can be fairly flexible, youth oriented, doesn't need to be like a courtroom setting, for example. So there is a fair amount of latitude and opportunity to Vermontize this process.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Alright. And it sounds like you are agreeable to working on that process with the judiciary.

[Amanda Churchill Kipp, Policy and Practice Specialist, DCF Family Services]: Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: Thank you.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you so much. I think we can move on to the next section.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Okay. Next up then is the pregnancy working group. And I believe Brenda is going to speak to that part of the proposed bill as well.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: Yes, thank you. And I definitely appreciate the opportunity to talk about our work in this arena and the opportunity that the working group represents. I did want to start out by clarifying first and foremost, as Erica started out with in the beginning, that our mission is to ensure that children and youth remain in the home whenever it is safely possible for that to occur. And so, this foundation is an important part of this conversation. And we have worked hard, I would say, particularly over the past decade, since legislature commissioned UVM to do a study on our custody entrance rate to look at how in Vermont we can ensure the safe reduction of custody entrance rate in the state. And so we know at the federal level, are required to make efforts to ensure that children remain safely in the home. And there are circumstances where an individual could be pregnant and there could be concerns that that infant upon birth would be in harm's way. And so we do have within the state

[Tyler Allen, High-End System of Care Director, DCF Family Services]: of

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: Vermont, Vermont State Statute, Title 33, Chapter 51, where we have the ability to conduct an assessment. And we are doing so in circumstances where there is a level of concern. Now that could be concerned due to a level of substance use occurring in the household such that the child could be in harm's way upon birth. It could be circumstances like serious physical injury, where a child in that household has been seriously harmed, or even where a child maltreatment fatality has occurred. Circumstances where there have been termination of parental rights proceedings, where we know that if we are able to have a level of involvement and support with that family, there's the opportunity to prevent the need for that child to come into DCF custody at birth, because we're able to work with the family, work with extended family, work with natural supports, work with treatment providers to put pieces in place that will ensure that that child is able to remain safely in that household upon birth. So, you know, when I think about maybe one significant data point to share with the committee, if I look back to twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen at the peak of the opioid epidemic, we had over 1,400 children and youth in DCF custody. As of 02/02/2026, we had seven seventy two children and youth in DCF custody. So we have seen a steady decrease in the need for children to come into care for their safety. I think very much in due to these types of efforts. So, I want to just provide a quick note of clarification. The word surveillance is not language that anyone in the Family Services Division would ever use.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, we don't it either, Brenda. So, thank you for the suggestion about the name change. I just want to be clear with you. We didn't like it either, and we're looking for something different as well. Thank you.

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: Thank you. Yes, we are about supporting families for children to be able to remain safely in their care. And so, you know, being able to intervene in a family where there could be an infant coming into that household, we know that that is a vulnerable time and families deserve support at that vulnerable moment. So, we do have policy that speaks to interpretation of the statute that I've mentioned, that in which we would be opening for assessment in the last thirty days of a pregnancy so that we can offer that support, have conversation with the family about what could represent that child being in harm's way and what steps can be taken in order to make those changes proactively so that that infant can remain safely in that household. And so we do, you know, ensure when those calls of concern come in, that we are responding in that thirty day window. And so that the language about the pregnancy tracking is no more than that. So I just think that's probably also a valuable point of clarification that it's the last thirty days of circumstances in which there is a concern, very specifically a concern that child abuse or neglect could occur to that newborn infant. Those are the circumstances under which we would be involved and not beyond that. So it's not a generic pregnant women across Vermont. I just think it's an important clarification to make. Thanks.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Appreciate that, Brenda. I have a, I guess a clarifying question. So if there had been a concern raised or an allegation made about an individual, when does the individual become aware of the fact that that has happened and that you would, you know, then undertake your, you know, supportive services and interventions?

[Brenda Gooley, Director of Operations, DCF Family Services]: It would be during those last thirty days that they would typically receive a call, a reach out call to say, I understand that you're expecting due soon. It sounds like there is a level of concern. You may have some vulnerabilities, you deserve support. I'm here to talk with you and see what we can do to support you and your newborn infant to be able to be in a safe, healthy situation. Right, so that's the approach. It's an assessment. It's not an investigation, and it's not a court intervention. It's a call of concern. And then an assessment is conducted in order to provide those prevention level supports. And if it's a substance use related situation, there are models such as the CHARM team out of Chittenden County that have actually received national level recognition regarding the work that's done, the collaborative wraparound work that's done in order to support women and their infants who are engaged in treatment and engaged in wraparound services in having that child remain safely in their care. So there's, I would say, incredible collaborative work being done in the state of Vermont that we're very proud of.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: You know, this might be a good area for Hannah Marble, who recently was the district director, to step in and sort of walk through what an assessment actually looks like. I'm hoping the committee might find that helpful.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yes, if we could do that, you know, in a brief way, I think that would be good.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Reveal, Madam Chair. For the record, again, Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs for DCR Family Services. As Deputy Commissioner mentioned, I'm very recently out of the field. I've been in this role since late September and testified to the committee years ago about some experience in the field as well. So I just appreciate the opportunity to provide some education. So in a prior role, I was the district director in St. Johnsbury. Prior to that, supervisor. Prior to that, I was a worker in the field for around five years, primarily working

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you for sticking with DCF and state employment. You're welcome.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: So for the five years that I was working in the field, I wouldn't want to put a number on it, but roughly, I swear it's probably thirty five to forty of these cases. The long and short of it is it is an assessment. The initial call to the parent typically is occurring within seventy two hours of that report being received when

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: it's It might not be in the last thirty days. Correct. That's what I was trying

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: to

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: understand. If there was an initial call, say in the first trimester of somebody's pregnancy, the department would be making a call within seventy two hours to that. I see what you're asking. Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: I do. So the initial call could come in the first trimester. That case will not be assessed until thirty days prior to that mother's or that pregnant person's due date. And so when assessment is thirty days prior to the due date, so let's say they're due on December 30, We are becoming involved on December 1. Pardon my face here. And on December 1 to December 3, may be calling and saying, hi, this is Hannah from Family Services. We've heard about your pregnancy. We want to make sure that you're supported and have the services that you need. How can we help you? From there, I will say, testimonially, more often than not, in my caseload experience, those babies were staying with their mothers within that time frame. Because that time frame allows us to get in and do very focused, concentrated work, connecting with services, connecting with WIC, pulling together family safety planning meetings with every family member that wants to support that mom and that baby and that family and saying, maybe mom is struggling with substance abuse. Who can drive her to the MAT program to get some treatment, who can provide twenty four hour support for mom and baby upon their discharge from the hospital, who is keeping logs of when baby is eating. If mom is struggling and is potentially relapsing, which we know is a very common part of recovery, who is jumping in from this woman's network to say, I'm here. We're going to call DCF and say, we're struggling, but we have a plan. And also in that timeframe, we are making referrals to the services that Brenda mentioned, as well as nursing support, VNA through visiting nurses, WIC, things of that nature. So I'm not sure I really got my question answered. I appreciate all of that detail.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Of course. So I just wanna make sure that I under, I think maybe you've answered it, but I wanna make sure I am understanding it. So DCF gets a call in the first trimester, the individual, the pregnant woman not notified until thirty days before their due date that you received a call six months earlier. Correct.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: And in the six month period earlier that you're referring to, there is not intervention.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: There's no intervention. There's no intervention.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: They don't even know that somebody's called to indicate a concern. Potentially. We at times would hope that medical providers and folks that are supporting this mom have said, this is why I needed to make this call. And I would just impress upon the committee that the majority of the calls that are made to DCF,

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: there's no

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Unless the person is notifying the mom, dad, family that they have called DCF, it is not uncommon whatsoever for families not to know that a call has been made. And we want to ensure very clearly that mandated reporters are following what they need to do with And their again, from a field perspective, I have had the conversations over the years of, it sounds like maybe you and your team at the hospital can jump in and support this mom. Please do and take that upon yourself. Hope that answers your question.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, no, it does. I struggle honestly on two different levels because one level being if there is a significant issue and the mom doesn't have the kind of supports that she needs and we wait an extended period of time, then we actually have endangered the child.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: Working with the service. Yeah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Then on the flip side of, on the other side of that coin is like, I think if I were in that situation, I would want to know that there had been a call. And so then not knowing till thirty days. In any event, I'm appreciative of the fact that you're not opposed to a working group, because I think we need to have some of these discussions about definitely understanding the role to provide protection and support for the child and the mom in this case. And figuring out, making sure that we're just, I guess, reaching agreement about how best to do that. So appreciate that very much.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: And just lastly, in our memo, we did include some very specific thoughts for the committee about additional folks that can be involved just to support the integration of the Thank you.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, that looks like we've come to the end. I really very much appreciate your you know, collaboration on this and the clarification of, you know, the various items where we know that there's continued work to be done on this bill. And just didn't deputy commissioner, if you had any final comments that you wanted to make.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: Sure. I also well, one, I see rep Steady has her hand up.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I didn't see that. Sorry.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue, Ranking Member]: Can't see. Slides are up.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. If you can take down the slides now, Hannah, that would be great. Rep. Zon Eastes?

[Representative Zon Eastes, Member]: As a person that is pretty conservative, I've been told this bill is gonna be at no cost to the taxpayer. Can all your organizations support this bill if it does get voted through? I just wanna make sure because I am one of those taxpayers. Can all your organizations support it if it does pass? I just wanna be upfront with people.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Perhaps I'm Steady. I think that we we well, one is just one organization. It's the Oh, Department for Children and Families. And they have identified at least one area that they think that there would be additional cost to. And and they have identified through their testimony the places where they have agreement and collaboration, and we can work through the language. So hopefully that answers your question.

[Representative Zon Eastes, Member]: It does. Will we get a fiscal note, Theresa?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: It it all depends upon what the final language looks like, representative Steady. K. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, deputy commissioner. I couldn't see her hand on this tent.

[Aryka Radke, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division]: No worries. I just wanted to thank all of you for your work on this bill. I can tell, you know, omnibus in just so many areas and so many detailed questions, and we really are looking forward to continuing collaboration with you. And I'm glad that there were so many areas where we could have some agreement, and then those areas where we need further time that you all are are open to that. Sure. Thank you very much.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: All right, thank you. And thank everyone who chimed in today. Appreciate it very much. Okay, committee, just to give you an update on stuff that's happening. You were surprised probably that five forty five was not up on the floor today. Representative Bert has decided to re offer his amendment that we have already heard testimony on. But Lori, we should probably try to schedule him first thing on Tuesday morning. A week from Tuesday, not next Tuesday. So it's not a new amendment from what I understand. I understand it is the same amendment that he presented previously. So we'll take that up. I also wanted to check-in with folks. So next, when we come back, as I mentioned earlier this week, it's going to be a long week. Spit it out, Theresa. Would it be an undue hardship to ask people to come in on Tuesday before floor? Wrong. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Because that way we can deal with representative Burt's amendment and we also may be able to schedule a witness before that. And we've just added to our list of witnesses on this bill. So that will be that. On the pre K, which is another thing that we're working on. So I think at this point in time that that's going to be part of a bill that makes its way through here and then to education and ways and means. We may have a little bit of extra time on that piece. So as I said earlier, we will be starting earlier next when we come back and we will be coming back most likely to the committee room after floor. And I will just say that it's important, and that might not be for every day, but if you can texting watch

[Representative Jubilee McGill, Member]: for schedule changes that might happen quickly. Yeah, go ahead. Are you anticipating like an 08:30 start?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I am anticipating an 08:30 start.

[Hannah Marble, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services]: I just wasn't sure how's that early. Yeah, yeah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Have a good week off, folks. Thank you for coming in through your lunch hour. I appreciate it.